Aytuluk Hande G, Colak Tuncay
Kocaeli Derince Training and Research Hospital, Department of Anesthesiology and Reanimation, Kocaeli, Turquia; Kocaeli University Faculty of Medicine, Department of Anatomy, Kocaeli, Turquia.
Kocaeli University Faculty of Medicine, Department of Anatomy, Kocaeli, Turquia.
Braz J Anesthesiol. 2020 Jan-Feb;70(1):28-35. doi: 10.1016/j.bjan.2019.12.008. Epub 2020 Feb 19.
To evaluate the single-injection and triple-injection techniques in infraclavicular blocks with an ultrasound-guided medial approach in terms of block success and the need for supplementary blocks.
This study comprised 139 patients who were scheduled for elective or emergency upper-limb surgery. Patients who received an infraclavicular blocks with a triple-injection technique were included in Group T (n = 68). Patients who received an infraclavicular blocks with a single-injection technique were included in Group S (n = 71). The number of patients who required supplementary blocks or had complete failure, the recovery time of sensory blocks and early and late complications were noted.
The block success rate was 84.5% in Group S, and 94.1% in Group T without any need for supplementary nerve blocks. The blocks were supplemented with distal peripheral nerve blocks in 8 patients in Group S and in 3 patients in Group T. Following supplementation, the block success rate was 95.8% in Group S and 98.5% in Group T. These results were not statistically significant. A septum preventing the proper distribution of local anesthetic was clearly visualized in 4 patients. The discomfort rate during the block was significantly higher in Group T ( < 0.05).
In ultrasound-guided medial-approach infraclavicular blocks, single-injection and triple-injection techniques did not differ in terms of block success rates. The need for supplementary blocks was higher in single injections than with triple injections. The presence of a fascial layer could be the reason for improper distribution of local anesthetics around the cords.
通过超声引导内侧入路锁骨下阻滞,评估单次注射技术和三次注射技术在阻滞成功率及辅助阻滞需求方面的差异。
本研究纳入139例计划进行择期或急诊上肢手术的患者。接受三次注射技术锁骨下阻滞的患者纳入T组(n = 68)。接受单次注射技术锁骨下阻滞的患者纳入S组(n = 71)。记录需要辅助阻滞或阻滞完全失败的患者数量、感觉阻滞恢复时间以及早期和晚期并发症。
S组阻滞成功率为84.5%,T组为94.1%,均无需辅助神经阻滞。S组有8例患者、T组有3例患者需补充远端周围神经阻滞。补充后,S组阻滞成功率为95.8%,T组为98.5%。这些结果无统计学差异。4例患者清晰可见有一隔膜妨碍局部麻醉药的正常分布。T组阻滞期间的不适率显著更高(<0.05)。
在超声引导内侧入路锁骨下阻滞中,单次注射技术和三次注射技术在阻滞成功率方面无差异。单次注射比三次注射需要辅助阻滞的情况更多。筋膜层的存在可能是局部麻醉药在神经束周围分布不当的原因。